You are here: / Administrative Law
, ,

EXCEPTION TO FINALITY RULE WHERE IT IS CLEAR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE FUTILE; DEVELOPER DID NOT HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN A SITE PLAN APPROVAL WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A VIOLATION-OF-DUE-PROCESS CAUSE OF ACTION.

In finding the town planning board’s motion for summary judgment on several causes of action brought by respondent developer should have been granted, the Second Department explained (1) the finality rule need not be mechanically applied where it is clear further administrative proceedings would be futile, and (2) the developer did not have a property interest in a site plan approval which would support a violation-of-due-process cause of action:

 

“To determine whether a matter is ripe for judicial review, it is necessary first to determine whether the issues tendered are appropriate for judicial resolution, and second to assess the hardship to the parties if judicial relief is denied'” … . “The concept of finality requires an examination of the completeness of the administrative action and a pragmatic evaluation of whether the decision-maker has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury'” … .

In the area of land use, “[a] final decision exists when a development plan has been submitted, considered and rejected by the governmental entity with the power to implement zoning regulations” … . In this regard, “[a] property owner, for example, will be excused from obtaining a final decision if pursuing an appeal to a zoning board of appeals or seeking a variance would be futile. That is, a property owner need not pursue such applications when a zoning agency lacks discretion to grant variances or has dug in its heels and made clear that all such applications will be denied” … . Additionally, an exception to the finality requirement exists where the municipal entity uses “repetitive and unfair procedures in order to avoid a final decision” … . …

[Respondent developer] alleged that it had a cognizable property interest in the approval of the application that was injured in violation of its right to due process under both the United States and New York State Constitutions. However, as the Planning Board has significant discretion in reviewing site plan applications … , East End does not have a cognizable property interest in the approval of a particular site plan application …. .  East End Resources, LLC v Town of Southold Planning Bd., 2016 NY Slip Op 00476, 2nd Dept 1-27-16

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (FINALITY RULE NOT APPLIED WHERE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS FUTILE)/ZONING (DEVELOPER DID NOT HAVE PROPERTY INTEREST IN SITE PLAN APPROVAL)/DUE PROCESS (DEVELOPER DID NOT HAVE PROPERTY INTEREST IN SITE PLAN APPROVAL)/SITE PLAN (DEVELOPER DID NOT HAVE PROPERTY INTEREST IN SITE PLAN APPROVAL)

,

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXECUTIVE-COMPENSATION-CAP AND CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST RULES FOR AGENCIES PROVIDING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN DO NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, reversing Supreme Court, determined that two Department of Health (DOH) rules concerning services provided to developmentally disabled children did not violate the separation of powers doctrine. One rule placed a cap on executive compensation, and the other prohibited an agency which evaluates a child’s need for services from itself providing those services (“conflict of interest” rule). The First Department explained the underlying general principles and then went through each of the Boreali [71 NY2d 1] “separation of powers” factors for each rule:

“The cornerstone of administrative law is derived from the principle that the Legislature may declare its will, and after fixing a primary standard, endow administrative agencies with the power to fill in the interstices in the legislative product by prescribing rules and regulations consistent with the enabling legislation” … . “The constitutional principle of separation of powers . . . requires that the [L]egislature make the critical policy decisions, while the executive branch’s responsibility is to implement those policies” … . “The branches of government cannot always be neatly divided, however, and common sense must be applied when reviewing a separation of powers challenge. As long as the [L]egislature makes the basic policy choices, the legislation need not be detailed or precise as to the agency’s role” … . Where an agency has been endowed with broad power to regulate in the public interest, courts generally will uphold reasonable acts that further the regulatory scheme … .

[The Boreali] factors are (1) “whether the agency did more than balanc[e] costs and benefits according to preexisting guidelines, but instead made value judgments entail[ing] difficult and complex choices between broad policy goals to resolve social problems”; (2) “whether the agency merely filled in details of a broad policy or if it wrote on a clean slate, creating its own comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance”; (3) “whether the [L]egislature has unsuccessfully tried to reach agreement on the issue, which would indicate that the matter is a policy consideration for the elected body to resolve”; and (4) “whether the agency used special expertise or competence in the field to develop the challenged regulations” … . The “central theme” of a Boreali analysis is that “an administrative agency exceeds its authority when it makes difficult choices between public policy ends, rather than find[ing] means to an end chosen by the Legislature” … . Agencies for Children’s Therapy Servs., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Health,  2015 NY Slip Op 09647, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, DOH EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION CAP AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES DO NOT VIOLATE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE)/DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, SERVICES FOR (DOH EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION CAP AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES DO NOT VIOLATE SEPARARY OF POWERS)/DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION CAP AND CONFLICT OF INETERST RULES DO NOT VIOLATE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE)/SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE (SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, DOH EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION CAP AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES DO NOT VIOLATE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE)

,

INCONSISTENCIES IN TWO FINAL RENT-ADJUSTMENT ORDERS ALLOWED RECONSIDERATION OF THE NATURE OF THE MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS [MCI’S] DESCRIBED IN THE ORDERS

In a rent-increase matter which was before the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), the First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined a discrepancy between two prior rent-adjustment orders constituted “an irregularity in a vital matter” which allowed the DHRC, on remand, to reconsider the two (final) orders. The discrepancy related to the nature of the “major capital improvement [MCI]” (purportedly justifying a rent increase) to which each order referred. The dissent argued that the two orders were final orders and collateral estoppel prohibited further reexamination of them. Matter of 60 E. 12th St. Tenants’ Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2015 NY Slip Op 09599, 1st Dept 12-29-15

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (RECONSIDERATION OF INCONSISTENT FINAL ORDERS BY NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL)/DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL [DHCR] (RECONSIDERATION OF INCONSISTENT FINAL RENT-ADJUSTMENT ORDERS) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; LANDLORD-TENANT. .

,

INCONSISTENCIES IN TWO FINAL RENT-ADJUSTMENT ORDERS ALLOWED RECONSIDERATION OF THE NATURE OF THE MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS [MCI’S] DESCRIBED IN THE ORDERS.

In a rent-increase matter which was before the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), the First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined a discrepancy between two prior rent-adjustment orders constituted “an irregularity in a vital matter” which allowed the DHRC, on remand, to reconsider the two (final) orders. The discrepancy related to the nature of the “major capital improvement [MCI]” (purportedly justifying a rent increase) to which each order referred. The dissent argued that the two orders were final orders and collateral estoppel prohibited further reexamination of them. Matter of 60 E. 12th St. Tenants’ Assn. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2015 NY Slip Op 09599, 1st Dept 12-29-15

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (RECONSIDERATION OF INCONSISTENT FINAL ORDERS BY NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL)/DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL [DHCR] (RECONSIDERATION OF INCONSISTENT FINAL RENT-ADJUSTMENT ORDERS)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, DRIVER’S LICENSES. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES HAS THE POWER TO DENY RELICENSING TO DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI WHO HAD TWO SIX POINT SPEEDING TICKETS DURING THE LOOK-BACK PERIOD.

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, pursuant to the new DWI relicensing regulations, properly refused to relicense petitioner, who had been convicted of three alcohol-related offenses during ten years, based upon two six point speeding tickets during the look-back period. The question presented was whether two five point speeding tickets could properly constitute a “serious driving offense” justifying a denial of relicensing. The majority concluded the relevant regulation was a valid exercise of the Commissioner’s powers. The court noted that the Commissioner has the discretion to grant a license under unusual, extenuating and compelling circumstances, but petitioner did not make an application under that provision:

In the broadest sense, 15 NYCRR part 136 was promulgated to “establish[] criteria to identify individual problem drivers,” that is, applicants for new licenses that “ha[ve] had a series of convictions, incidents and/or accidents . . . which in the judgment of the [C]ommissioner . . . upon review of the applicant’s entire driving history, establishes that the person would be an unusual and immediate risk upon the highways” (15 NYCRR 136.1 [a], [b] [1]). In developing these regulations, the Commissioner considered empirical data, which indicated that drivers with three or more alcohol- or drug-related driving convictions are involved in a disproportionate number of motor vehicle accidents. Accordingly, the Commissioner rationally determined that such drivers “pose the highest risk to the general population” (NY Reg, Mar. 13, 2013 at 43) and, thus, should not be granted new, unrestricted licenses until after a waiting period of several years (see 15 NYCRR 136.5 [b] [3], [4]). With that in mind, we cannot consider the Commissioner’s decision to subject such recidivist impaired or intoxicated drivers to a longer — or even a presumptively permanent — ban on relicensure to be arbitrary when, like petitioner, such drivers may independently qualify as “problem drivers” because of the presence of speeding or other violations on their driving records (see 15 NYCRR 136.1 [b] [1]; 136.5 [a] [2]; [b] [2]).

As for petitioner’s claim that her two six-point speeding violations during the 25-year look-back period are not serious enough to be expressly defined as a “serious driving offense” (see 15 NYCRR [a] [2] [iii]), we defer to the Commissioner’s determination, as it was made pursuant to her discretionary authority (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510 [5], [6]), and it was within the area of expertise of the agency she headds … . Matter of Matsen v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2015 NY Slip Op 09159, 3rd Dept 12-10-15

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (DRIVER’S LICENSES, COMMISSIONER HAS POWER TO DENY RELICENSING A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI BASED UPON TWO FIVE-POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/DRIVER’S LICENSES (RELICENSING OF DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/SPEEDING TICKETS (TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDS CONSTITUTE A SERIOUS DRIVING OFFENSE FOR WHICH RELICENSING CAN BE DENIED TO A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI)/RELICENSING OF DRIVERS CONVICTED OF DWI (CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)

COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES HAS THE POWER TO DENY RELICENSING TO DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI WHO HAD TWO SIX POINT SPEEDING TICKETS DURING THE LOOK-BACK PERIOD.

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, pursuant to the new DWI relicensing regulations, properly refused to relicense petitioner, who had been convicted of three alcohol-related offenses during ten years, based upon two six point speeding tickets during the look-back period. The question presented was whether two five point speeding tickets could properly constitute a “serious driving offense” justifying a denial of relicensing. The majority concluded the relevant regulation was a valid exercise of the Commissioner’s powers. The court noted that the Commissioner has the discretion to grant a license under unusual, extenuating and compelling circumstances, but petitioner did not make an application under that provision:

In the broadest sense, 15 NYCRR part 136 was promulgated to “establish[] criteria to identify individual problem drivers,” that is, applicants for new licenses that “ha[ve] had a series of convictions, incidents and/or accidents . . . which in the judgment of the [C]ommissioner . . . upon review of the applicant’s entire driving history, establishes that the person would be an unusual and immediate risk upon the highways” (15 NYCRR 136.1 [a], [b] [1]). In developing these regulations, the Commissioner considered empirical data, which indicated that drivers with three or more alcohol- or drug-related driving convictions are involved in a disproportionate number of motor vehicle accidents. Accordingly, the Commissioner rationally determined that such drivers “pose the highest risk to the general population” (NY Reg, Mar. 13, 2013 at 43) and, thus, should not be granted new, unrestricted licenses until after a waiting period of several years (see 15 NYCRR 136.5 [b] [3], [4]). With that in mind, we cannot consider the Commissioner’s decision to subject such recidivist impaired or intoxicated drivers to a longer — or even a presumptively permanent — ban on relicensure to be arbitrary when, like petitioner, such drivers may independently qualify as “problem drivers” because of the presence of speeding or other violations on their driving records (see 15 NYCRR 136.1 [b] [1]; 136.5 [a] [2]; [b] [2]).

As for petitioner’s claim that her two six-point speeding violations during the 25-year look-back period are not serious enough to be expressly defined as a “serious driving offense” (see 15 NYCRR [a] [2] [iii]), we defer to the Commissioner’s determination, as it was made pursuant to her discretionary authority (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510 [5], [6]), and it was within the area of expertise of the agency she heads … . Matter of Matsen v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2015 NY Slip Op 09159, 3rd Dept 12-10-15

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (DRIVER’S LICENSES, COMMISSIONER HAS POWER TO DENY RELICENSING A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI BASED UPON TWO FIVE-POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/DRIVER’S LICENSES (RELICENSING OF DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/SPEEDING TICKETS (TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDS CONSTITUTE A SERIOUS DRIVING OFFENSE FOR WHICH RELICENSING CAN BE DENIED TO A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI)/RELICENSING OF DRIVERS CONVICTED OF DWI (CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)

,

New Relicensing Regulations Can Be Applied Retroactively (Re: Alcohol-Related Driving Convictions)

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles had the power to retroactively apply regulations re: the relicensing of persons with three or more alcohol-related driving convictions:

… [T]here is no merit to petitioner’s contention that the Commissioner erred in retroactively applying the amended regulations to his application … . “[P]etitioner’s driver’s license is not generally viewed as a vested right, but merely a personal privilege subject to reasonable restrictions and revocation by [the Commissioner] under her discretionary powers . . . Thus, [the Commissioner] remained free to apply her most recent regulations when exercising her discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny petitioner’s application for relicensing. This is especially so in light of the rational, seven-month moratorium placed on all similarly-situated applicants for relicensing— i.e., persons with three or more alcohol-related driving convictions” … . Matter of Underwood v Fiala, 2015 NY Slip Op 08545, 4th Dept 11-20-15

 

,

Finding that Claimant’s Absenteeism Was Not Disqualifying Misconduct Was Supported by Substantial Evidence; Courts’ Review Powers in this Context Explained

The Third Department determined the board’s finding that claimant’s absenteeism did not amount to disqualifying misconduct (because it was related to his diabetes) was supported by substantial evidence. The court also explained its review powers in this context:

While continued absenteeism, despite previous warnings, may rise to the level of misconduct disqualifying an employee from receiving unemployment insurance benefits …, “termination of employment attributable to symptoms of a diagnosed medical condition will not constitute disqualifying misconduct”… .  Whether an absence is justified so as to remove it from disqualifying misconduct is a factual question for the Board to resolve, and its resolution of this issue will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence … .

Here, claimant testified that he suffers from type 1 diabetes and that he experienced a diabetic episode, consisting of shakiness, nausea and headaches, that caused his absence on August 8, 2013. He submitted medical documentation confirming his diabetic condition and indicating that it is being treated but has been “difficult to control.” Although the employer was aware that he was a diabetic, claimant admittedly failed to inform his superiors that he was experiencing health problems related to his diabetes or that this was the cause of his August 8, 2013 absence. The Board, as the final arbiter of factual issues and credibility, was free to credit claimant’s testimony concerning the reason for his absence and was not bound by the contrary conclusion reached by the ALJ … . Pursuant to our limited review, “this Court may not weigh conflicting evidence or substitute its own judgment, and if, as here, the findings turn on the credibility of witnesses, we may not substitute our perceptions for those of the agency” … . Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant’s loss of employment was not due to disqualifying misconduct … . Matter of Suchocki (St. Joseph’s R.C. Church–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 07899, 3rd Dept 10-29-15

 

,

Courts’ Limited Review Powers Re: an Administrative Determination Made After a Hearing Clearly Explained

In reversing Supreme Court’s annulment of the fire district board’s determination petitioner was not entitled to benefits pursuant to Municipal law 207-a (2), the Second Department explained the courts’ review powers in this context:

“Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence” … .  “Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla of evidence,’ and the test of whether substantial evidence exists in a record is one of rationality, taking into account all the evidence on both sides” … . “When there is conflicting evidence or different inferences may be drawn, the duty of weighing the evidence and making the choice rests solely upon the [administrative agency]. The courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by [such agency] where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists'” … . “Moreover, where there is conflicting expert testimony, in making a General Municipal Law § 207-a determination, a municipality is free to credit one physician’s testimony over that of another'” … . “Thus, even if conflicting medical evidence can be found in the record,’ the municipality’s determination, based on its own expert’s conclusions, may still be supported by substantial evidence” … . Matter of Delgrande v Greenville Fire Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 07838, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

, ,

Zoning Board’s Determination Lacked a Rational Basis

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly found the zoning board of appeals (ZBA’s) determination was not supported by the evidence and lacked a rational basis. The petitioners were denied permission to operate a concrete aggregate recycling business in an area where the processing of raw materials was prohibited. The zoning board denied the application on the ground that petitioners were going to process raw materials. However petitioners denied that they would process raw materials and there was no evidence, other than rumor, to the contrary. The court explained the criteria for review of a zoning determination:

“In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a zoning board of appeals, judicial review is limited to ascertaining whether the action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion”… . Where, as here, a determination is made by a zoning board of appeals after a public hearing, the determination of the zoning board should be upheld if it has a rational basis supported by evidence in the record (see CPLR 7803[4] …).

* * * The key determination made by the ZBA … was that the petitioners intended to engage in activities that included the processing of raw materials on the site, despite the petitioners’ repeated statements and assurances otherwise. The record is replete with instances where the petitioners disputed, as nothing more than baseless rumor and suspicion, the claim that they intended to engage in activities other than concrete aggregate recycling on the site. The record is also devoid of any evidence supporting the ZBA’s conclusion that the petitioners would engage in activities other than those which were explicitly approved or permitted as of right under the zoning and planning ordinance in force prior … . Matter of Green Materials of Westchester v Town of Cortlandt, 2015 NY Slip Op 07659, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy